http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150204/s...08242.html
The above is an original study as published by Nature. It's obviously long and detailed as it is a full paper, backed and fully cited, but its implications are profound. See, I came across it here--
http://www.news.com.au/technology/scienc...7214120852
And the relevant quotes the article took from the study were these:
The implications of this study are rather interesting. This study indirectly supports the idea that smaller family sizes if not greater singlehood is all but assured as a civilisation gets more technological and better able to cope with providing the resources of life. Basically, as your population gets larger, the need for risk aversion strategies declined. It is literally an evolutionary backing for the "Curse of Success".
I think this also has profound implications for feminism and where permissive society is likely to head. In effect, riding the cock carousel is not women exercising their freedom, it's an evolutionary expression of risk-taking adaptations in the species. Risk aversion strategies in evolutionary terms only happen when the populations are small and the stakes are high - i.e. when your odds of dying in childbirth or not finding any partner are great. Maybe -- maybe -- this explains the slow death of traditional values in less technologically advanced countries such as EE, SEA and whatnot: as Western culture penetrates, women are presented with a wider array of potential partners and so start riding the carousel thinking there will be someone waiting when she decides to get off it later on.
You might say this is almost biological evidence backing the proposition that men really, really should not be wifing up women in their 30s or 40s. When you do, it reinforces risk-taking behaviour in women, not only from a rational economic standpoint, but right from an evolutionary standpoint as well.
The above is an original study as published by Nature. It's obviously long and detailed as it is a full paper, backed and fully cited, but its implications are profound. See, I came across it here--
http://www.news.com.au/technology/scienc...7214120852
And the relevant quotes the article took from the study were these:
Quote:Quote:
MSU professor of microbiology and molecular genetics Chris Adami said it is human nature to take the safe bet when stakes are high — such as the odds of producing offspring.
“An individual might hold out to find the perfect mate but run the risk of coming up empty and leaving no progeny,” Adami said.
The researches tested many variables that influence risk-taking behaviour and concluded that certain conditions influence our decision-making process.
“We observe that risk aversion only evolves when the gamble is a rare event,” he said.
This means that the amount someone is willing to bet on finding the perfect mate is strongly related to the size of the pool they have to draw from.
“Settling early for the sure bet gives you an evolutionary advantage, if living in a small group,” he said.
“Preference for risk averse strategies only evolves in small populations of less than 1,000 individuals, or in populations segmented into groups of 150 individuals or fewer.”
With those numbers thought to be comparable to what primitive humans encountered in the past, one only has to look at them to see the theory in practice.
“Primitive humans were likely forced to bet on whether or not they could find a better mate,” Mr Adami said.
“They could either choose to mate with the first, potentially inferior, companion and risk inferior offspring, or they could wait for Mr. or Ms. Perfect to come around.
“If they chose to wait, they risk never mating.”
If you are freaking out because the only large groups you associate with are on Facebook and Twitter, fear not.
Researches have offered a glimmer of hope for those wanting to hold out for The One.
Adami said not everyone follows the same level of risk aversion when it comes to reproducing.
“We do not all evolve to be the same,” Adami said.
“Evolution creates diversity in our acceptance of risk, so you see some people who are more likely to take bigger risks than others. We see the same phenomenon in our simulations.”
The implications of this study are rather interesting. This study indirectly supports the idea that smaller family sizes if not greater singlehood is all but assured as a civilisation gets more technological and better able to cope with providing the resources of life. Basically, as your population gets larger, the need for risk aversion strategies declined. It is literally an evolutionary backing for the "Curse of Success".
I think this also has profound implications for feminism and where permissive society is likely to head. In effect, riding the cock carousel is not women exercising their freedom, it's an evolutionary expression of risk-taking adaptations in the species. Risk aversion strategies in evolutionary terms only happen when the populations are small and the stakes are high - i.e. when your odds of dying in childbirth or not finding any partner are great. Maybe -- maybe -- this explains the slow death of traditional values in less technologically advanced countries such as EE, SEA and whatnot: as Western culture penetrates, women are presented with a wider array of potential partners and so start riding the carousel thinking there will be someone waiting when she decides to get off it later on.
You might say this is almost biological evidence backing the proposition that men really, really should not be wifing up women in their 30s or 40s. When you do, it reinforces risk-taking behaviour in women, not only from a rational economic standpoint, but right from an evolutionary standpoint as well.
Remissas, discite, vivet.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm